(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[BlackHatCoiner]

When they created brc20, did it do any good?

Define "good".

did it help bitcoin holders well?

If that's your definition of "good", they I ought to say it's very poor and false. When I make transactions I don't expect to help Bitcoin holders. I only expect to satisfy myself.

So it should be removed because it has no good effect and help for bitcoin holders.

Really disappointed by your arrogance of knowing so perfectly what's good and bad for the rest of the users that you're in the position to enforce it on the protocol.

Listen up, and listen good: Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.

[1714659676]

1714659676

[1714659676]

1714659676

[1714659676]

1714659676

[1714659676]

1714659676

[1714659676]

1714659676

[larry_vw_1955]

this is certainly an interesting thread. seems like they keep popping up but this one really has generated some intense discussion with good arguments back and forth. appreciate all you guys.

[NotATether]

I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

This is actually the soundest proposal I've read in days (although bitcoin core developers cannot really take any action themselves at this point, or they will be attacked from all sides by the press and "youtubers" and nobody will use their invention. Just look at what happened with dashjr's comment if you don't believe me.)

The only question remaining is... how? The only way I'm thinking it can be done is, to create a new hype technology? I mean, if Casey Rodarmor was able to ignite it by himself, any developer with modest bitcoin knowledge can.

However, it appeals to me that FedEx'ing all the BRC20 tokens to a sidechain is the best approach. This will allow us to say stuff like "more scalability and thus more tokens", and as a result boot them off mainnet and onto a sidechain.

Or:

Instead of a sidechain, some crank can make these tokens on testnet3 (despite testnet being only intended for testing, but do you really think these guys will read the fine print anyway?), and testnet3 gets all the traffic instead of Bitcoin. This is something that can be done immediately right now, by some random guy on Twitter.

At least it will give the bitcoin protocol developers a compelling excuse to launch testnet4

[pooya87]

This is actually the soundest proposal I've read in days (although bitcoin core developers cannot really take any action themselves at this point, or they will be attacked from all sides by the press and "youtubers" and nobody will use their invention. Just look at what happened with dashjr's comment if you don't believe me.)

If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.

The only way I'm thinking it can be done is, to create a new hype technology?

That's the main problem. The tokens are useless as an idea this is why any alternative is not going to work. We already have other "hype technology" from Ethereum to all the other token platforms. We even have at least 3 bitcoin sidechains and protocols created with the purpose of "token creation". However their uselessness means none of these are going to become serious projects.

In other words this means that they NEED TO create their garbage inside bitcoin blockchain to gain any kind of hype since at this point they have exhausted all their options.

That means the only viable solution is the "ban hammer"

[larry_vw_1955]

That means the only viable solution is the "ban hammer"

that sounds like it could get serious. 

[TechW87]

ordinals/brc20/etc is a direct attack on bitcoin by ETH maxis disguised as Decentralization maxis.

Its sad bitcoin maintainers dont want to fix this.

[serveria.com]

It's so nice to see so many "voice of reason" comments here. Delusional Ordinals/BRC-20 shills are drowning in this sea of anti-NFT comments. It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings. I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused. 

[Z-tight]

It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings. I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused.  

Ordinals didn't cause any loss, it wasn't an attack that compromised the network or people's wallet, not that it is even possible, so what has a lawsuit got to do with this. BTC is even a decentralized currency, so if you ever lose BTC in your self custody, no lawsuit can help you recover it. Ordinals truly takes up block space, but it isn't a threat to BTC; it only causes mempool congestion and makes people to pay higher tx fees to outbid others and get their transaction confirmed, it is surely going to cool off.

[larry_vw_1955]

I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused. 

i doubt that would hold up in court. you might have to go after individual people that are using his tool to abuse the network if that's the way you feel. imagine that. people uploading monkeys to bitcoin getting sent to jail. and that creates a chilling effect wherein other people become afraid to upload new monkeys and only trade monkeys on the darkweb...isn't that how bitcoin started out by the way? 

[mikeywith]

If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.

Not a fair compression IMO, SegWit implementation had no exclusion of a certain type or category of users, even the people who opposed it were essentially looking for the same goal that SegWit was going to accomplish they just thought their approach was better, maybe a few miners were upset about the fact that people can now transact cheaper using Segwit, but nothing major in terms of counter-arguments against SegWit.

This time it's different, many people will view it as "censorship", doesn't matter what we think of those folks who buy some money's png for a few thousand dollars, they still make a community, and the market cap of those BRC-20 tokens is now nearly half a billion $ in value, the trading volume of those tokens in the past 24H was $105,489,791, with nearly 30 projects built on BRC20, so it's not just a few mad folks who buy things that others think of as "worthless", they seem to have a large community, and many of those famous Youtubers and folks on Twitter bought into these shit tokens and are already promoting them, it is easy to understand the pressure on whoever leads a "ban" plan on these guys.

You are also going to have to convince mining pools to side with you and ditch the massive gains they started to make from those BRC-20 transactions, so a "ban" it is doable, but not easy at this point.

[serveria.com]

It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings. I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused.  

Ordinals didn't cause any loss, it wasn't an attack that compromised the network or people's wallet, not that it is even possible, so what has a lawsuit got to do with this. BTC is even a decentralized currency, so if you ever lose BTC in your self custody, no lawsuit can help you recover it. Ordinals truly takes up block space, but it isn't a threat to BTC; it only causes mempool congestion and makes people to pay higher tx fees to outbid others and get their transaction confirmed, it is surely going to cool off.

You are contradicting yourself here. Ordinals caused (and continue causing) huge losses. People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason. This is because the network is getting ddosed by the NFT criminals.

Putting pressure on the owner/inventor will make him feel the pain regular users feel because of his invention. I think it's quite fair and no need to introduce any limits/bans/censorship on the Bitcoin network. 

[pooya87]

If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.

Not a fair compression IMO,

I didn't compare the Ordinals Attack and its preventive measures with SegWit. I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on.

This time it's different, many people will view it as "censorship", doesn't matter what we think of those folks who buy some money's png for a few thousand dollars, they still make a community, and the market cap of those BRC-20 tokens is now nearly half a billion $ in value, the trading volume of those tokens in the past 24H was $105,489,791, with nearly 30 projects built on BRC20, so it's not just a few mad folks who buy things that others think of as "worthless", they seem to have a large community, and many of those famous Youtubers and folks on Twitter bought into these shit tokens and are already promoting them, it is easy to understand the pressure on whoever leads a "ban" plan on these guys.

Back in 2017 those who were performing the different types of attack on bitcoin were also a community and their funds surpassed at least tens of millions of dollars.

You are also going to have to convince mining pools to side with you and ditch the massive gains they started to make from those BRC-20 transactions, so a "ban" it is doable, but not easy at this point.

Again in 2017 the mining pools were making massive amount of profit from the spam attack and yet we managed to activate SegWit and the attack was also eventually eliminated.

[DooMAD]

It's so nice to see so many "voice of reason" comments here. Delusional Ordinals/BRC-20 shills are drowning in this sea of anti-NFT comments. It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings.

If you think more noise is going to yield your desired result, you might be disappointed.  You're still offering up a wishlist, rather than a course of action that everyone can agree upon.

I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused. 

As you seem to be one of the most aggrieved and are stating that there has been an impact on your business, are you going to put your money where your mouth is and get the ball rolling on that? 

Which legal precedent for 'an inventor being sued for people using their invention exactly as it was designed to be used' will you be invoking? 

Perhaps it's satoshi you need to sue?  Given that your argument is people aren't using their invention in the way you think it should be.

[BlackHatCoiner]

People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason.

There is a particular reason. Competition. It's a free market feature. Deal with it.

Cry all you want. Transactions are, by design, resilient to censorship.

I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on.

Honestly but how relevant a transaction malleability and scalability proposal is, in comparison with banning a certain type of transaction because you don't want to pay more in mining fees? I can't think of one relevance.

[Z-tight]

You are contradicting yourself here. Ordinals caused (and continue causing) huge losses. People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason. This is because the network is getting ddosed by the NFT criminals.

I am not contradicting myself, you say Ordinals caused huge losses like it created an opening for people's funds to be stolen in the network. TX fees isn't losses, a time will come when miners will receive incentive only through TX fees which will not be so cheap then, will it also be called losses at that time. I don't support this invention and i don't use it, but people are using it, and because the network is permissionless, they do not need my permission or yours to do so.

[NotATether]

I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused.  

i doubt that would hold up in court. you might have to go after individual people that are using his tool to abuse the network if that's the way you feel. imagine that. people uploading monkeys to bitcoin getting sent to jail. and that creates a chilling effect wherein other people become afraid to upload new monkeys and only trade monkeys on the darkweb...isn't that how bitcoin started out by the way?  

If you guys are still considering legal action, well good luck with that because the original Ordinals client is CC0-licensed (in other words, it's in the public domain).

[ABCbits]

Or:

Instead of a sidechain, some crank can make these tokens on testnet3 (despite testnet being only intended for testing, but do you really think these guys will read the fine print anyway?), and testnet3 gets all the traffic instead of Bitcoin. This is something that can be done immediately right now, by some random guy on Twitter.

At least it will give the bitcoin protocol developers a compelling excuse to launch testnet4

It sounds more realistic than you might expect when there are exchange which have BTC/tBTC pair. And they can even make argument testnet coin actually have value because there's cost to mine it.

Putting pressure on the owner/inventor will make him feel the pain regular users feel because of his invention. I think it's quite fair and no need to introduce any limits/bans/censorship on the Bitcoin network. 

As if suing Casey would stop people from using Ordinals. But if you or someone else suing Casey for such reason, i would classify such action as attack to open source software/development and i hope you went bankrupt after lose on court.

[dansus021]

To be honest BRC 20 is a great idea where we have smart contract like Etherum did build on popular and most recognizable blockchain BItcoin but it overloads the Bitcoin Network?'

I am just curious is there a possibility that Bitcoin has layer 2 but way way more efficient like Eth did with their layer 2 chain polygon arbitrum or optimism

[darkv0rt3x]

People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason.

There is a particular reason. Competition. It's a free market feature. Deal with it.

Cry all you want. Transactions are, by design, resilient to censorship.

I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on.

Honestly but how relevant a transaction malleability and scalability proposal is, in comparison with banning a certain type of transaction because you don't want to pay more in mining fees? I can't think of one relevance.

I understand and aknlowledge you hhave a point on the free market for fees, however, I still argue that this thing is using the Bitcoin network only as a cloud storage for crap stuff. This is not what Bitcoin was intended for. Wy wouldn't they go for BCH or BSV networks? I'm honestly asking because I don't know if this is technically possible!

Anyway, I still think something should be done regarding this attacks despite the fact that people may see this as an oportunity to make the network even stronger and resilient!

[DooMAD]

Wy wouldn't they go for BCH or BSV networks? I'm honestly asking because I don't know if this is technically possible!

Yeah, the BCH and BSV chains are stuffed full of images and other media.  Someone made an Ordinals equivalent for DOGE.  This stuff absolutely exists on other blockchains.  They just don't carry the same level of prestige as Bitcoin.

Anyway, I still think something should be done regarding this attacks despite the fact that people may see this as an oportunity to make the network even stronger and resilient!

The provision of an incentive is a natural way to encourage people to transact in a considerate manner, without trying to control them or deny their existence.  All this pitchforks-and-torches, tyrannical lynch-mob, "let's just ban it" mentality is discouraging.  I feel that approach would weaken the network.  It's about creating the right environment to incentivise the behaviour we'd like to see.  If the discussion were more along those lines, it would be more productive.  Things like this would provide an incentive and offer a more efficient way for gullible speculators to buy and sell silly pictures.  Even if the rest of us think it's stupid.